Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland
Franco-Melgar v. Mullin
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.
These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.
What the decision decided
Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.
| Agency |
ICE
Read by a model
Respondents detained Franco-Melgar on May 26, 2026, allegedly because ICE intended to remove her to Mexico “expeditiously.” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The Court agrees with Respondents and will dismiss the Petition as moot. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Vilma Franco-Melgar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Franco-Melgar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Franco-Melgar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. |
| The other claims |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Franco-Melgar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. |
| Months pending | Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Accordingly, Franco-Melgar’s Petition is moot. |
| Nationality |
Honduras
Read by a model
Franco-Melgar is a citizen and native of Honduras |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 8:26-cv-02059
- Filed
- May 26, 2026
- Ended
- June 22, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 27 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit authority
District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.